Calm down. You're getting defensive, but it's not warranted. I'm not attacking you.

> The amusing thing is that an LLM who had access to the thread would have alerted you to a basic error you're making.

I didn't make the "basic error" of assuming you didn't know spellcheckers existed. I was stressing that since spellcheckers already exist, you don't need an AI assisting your comments-writing. Much basic, non-style-altering alternatives exist and are better.

> "You can always ..." is not an argument against alternatives.

The argument I'm making is that if you care so much about standards you can always hone them yourself instead of taking the lazy way out of having an AI write for you.

Alternatively, if you're lazy then your standards aren't too high.

And yes, this is an argument against the alternative you're suggesting.

> The argument I'm making is that if you care so much about standards you can always hone them yourself instead of taking the lazy way out of having an AI write for you.

It's pretty clear that in this case the use of AI is not a matter of laziness, but rather quality/consistency assurance. I use code formatters not because I'm too lazy to indent code myself, but because it helps guarantee that it's formatted consistently. I use a stud finder when mounting things to walls not because I'm too lazy to do the “knock on the wall” trick, but because the stud finder is more precise and reliable at it.

I don't use AI to edit my comments, but if I did, it would be not because I'm too lazy to check for all the things I want to avoid putting in my comments, but as an extra layer of assurance on top of what I've already trained myself to do.